[Thrusthamster]

In strength training you often hear the adage “volume is volume” based on a few studies the last decade where equated volume of weight training over 30% of 1RM lead to similar gains.

Is this true for endurance training too? For example you have the base period “fill in” hours in the book, meaning 50% of the volume which is supposed to be recovery or zone 1 work, but you just do that spread out and when you can. If you do that as 10 minute blocks where you hardly break a sweat, but end up doing 50% of your training time this way, would that have the same effect as doing it in 1 hour sessions?

Meaning you keep the same pace, and you break the 50% max HR barrier for the 10 minutes, but you only do 10 minute sessions.

Topic

[Josh Gray]

Josh Gray on April 27, 2020 at 8:49 am #40929

I’ve read that for a trained individual that it takes 30 minutes minimum to create a training response in the body from a hormonal level. I would imagine though that say walking your dog for 10-20 minutes in the evening after a hard morning workout would contribute to recovery time though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous on April 27, 2020 at 1:08 pm #40953

…you have the base period “fill in” hours in the book…

Be careful not to minimize the importance of those hours. It would be the same as thinking, for a garden, that water and soil are secondary to fertilizer…

If you do that as 10-minute blocks where you hardly break a sweat but end up doing 50% of your training time this way, would that have the same effect as doing it in 1-hour sessions?

No idea, but it seems impractical even to find out. One possible advantage is that your average speed over your training hours would be higher. When training with a constant heart rate, your pace will naturally drift downward. But that drift in ten minutes would be negligible.